Talk:TexAgs

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 December 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas A&M Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - Texas A&M (assessed as Low-importance).

Criticism

It is a fact that people have those particular criticisms about texags moderation and it has been stated and recorded in particular texags threads. Since forum threads were established as reliable sources earlier in the article, they can be used in the criticism section.Ebmisfit 06:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where specifically did it state that forum threads were a reliable source? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

requested for temporary vandalism protection on this page to cool down the debate. Oldag07 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum threads are absolutely never used for sources per WP:RS. I have removed all instances of sources relying on texags forums as well as the entire criticism section as it is unsourced bias. The reason forums are never used as sources are because anyone can make a post anonymously, masquerading as anyone. Spigot Map 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SELFPUB. Additionally, these are simply showing that these posts actually happened. They are valid references. Give the criticism section a chance to get sources before deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a further example, if I say "ranger65 posted on 20 September", this claim is easily verified and referenced. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section was based completely on "questionable" sources, one of the guidelines. There IS reasonable doubt as to who published them, it's an internet forum. Spigot Map 02:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources. It is clearly stating they happened on such-and-such a date and shows that the posts actually happened. The source of the information is irrelevant in the last two cases. The others simply show the posts happened on certain dates. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger65 IS SecDef Gates. This is backed up in the newspaper article. His identity is not in question. The other post shows he still posts there and it isn't something that happened in the far past. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, it should be backed up with media claims, not forum claims. That falls under living persons. If it isn't backed up by secondary sources, or can't be verified other then by the own website forum, it ads nothing to this encyclopedia, in which case notability is in question. Spigot Map 02:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. There are two exceptions:

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability Done
it is not contentious; Done
it is not unduly self-serving; Done actually it is criticism, not self-serving
it does not involve claims about third parties; Done all of these claims are backed up by 3rd-party sources
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; Done
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; Done a "poster" wrote it. No one is attributing it to anyone else.
the article is not based primarily on such sources. Done not primarily based on it.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(re-indent) "If this is true, it should be backed up with media claims, not forum claims." It IS backed up by 3rd party claims.

Then what is the point of a forum source? Regardless, the criticism section is what's in question here, it has nothing to do with the secretary. Spigot Map 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if you will note, I reworded the criticism section "often" to read "sometimes". The identities of the posters is irrelevant in this case because their identities are not asserted in any way (it's not "SecDef Gates said..."). As for Brandon's identity, that can easily be verified by clicking on his name. Would it help to reference that screen as well? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...should have mentioned, the "S" by his name is for staff. Would you like that page as well? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all you have to support the Criticism section is forum sources, then it will be removed as a section can not exist solely on self published sources, that's why the guideline exists. Spigot Map 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say a section can't be based entirely on self-referenced sources (It is three sentences)? Would it be sufficient to simply incorporate it as a paragraph in the main section? — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

If TexAgs' notability on Wikipedia is ever put into question, please read the AfD discussion of a similar website. Also, the subject has several references in the media (reputable newspapers that is). BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already failed an AfD once. It is decently sourced, but only the forum. It is an article about a site with 95% of the article being about the forums. Spigot Map 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the issue with an article being only about forums? BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a forum website. What do you want? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Critisms section is sourced entire with forum posts. Editors claiming stake to this article claim this is just fine per WP:SELFPUB. Spigot Map 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the criticism section belongs. As one of the forum's posters, I can confirm that there is criticism about the website, but there is no third-party publication out there that verifies this. Besides, exactly how many users have criticized the website? If the criticism were really noteworthy, wouldn't a third-party take the time to report on it? Also, two of the statements in the section aren't even sourced at all, so those shouldn't be there in the first place. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are valid criticisms which have been voiced. Example: [1]. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be there if they can't be sourced, but they certainly should be given the opportunity to be sourced. They certainly don't fall under anything covered by WP:BLP as you stated in your edit summary. However, a rephrase here & there with those sections that ARE sourced should be kept at this time. Second of all, WP:DR involves more steps than going directly to an RfC. I suggest doing those first before involving other editors next time. That said, we're here, so let's see what other people have to say about it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is utterly ludicrous to rule out forum posts as sources in an entry about a forum. TexAgs is notorious for censorship, inconsistent moderation, secretive staff and random bannings. The mere fact that the site owner has allowed those threads to remain online is proof that there is substantial concern among users (the "customers" of the forum). It is a pay site, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchHole (talk • contribs) 11:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before we forget. . .

This is a pretty decent article in the 12th man magazine about the site. I am not sure if it qualifies as an outside source, but there is a goldmine of information about TexAgs. Oldag07 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good add to me. Perhaps we can use the article to boost the article. Buffs (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TexAgs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on TexAgs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]